What the infamous Health Care bill IS and ISN'T
-
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included
Well, that seems a little insane to me. So the government is going to try to control existing insurers to make them charge a more reasonable price ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd.
Not when they are a cause of cancer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions.
I guess in a system where people are more likely to be insurance, existing conditions are a moot point. Existing conditions matter only if someone was not insured before, otherwise they came to exist under insurance.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ing in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine.
So, that's how people become insured, b/c they pay a fine anyhow ? That actually does make some sense, in the sense that hospitals have to treat them, so they need to contribute to cost. Although the hospitals are all private in the US, right ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Let's discuss this again in a decade :P I don't believe this part for a second.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included
Well, that seems a little insane to me. So the government is going to try to control existing insurers to make them charge a more reasonable price ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd.
Not when they are a cause of cancer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions.
I guess in a system where people are more likely to be insurance, existing conditions are a moot point. Existing conditions matter only if someone was not insured before, otherwise they came to exist under insurance.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ing in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine.
So, that's how people become insured, b/c they pay a fine anyhow ? That actually does make some sense, in the sense that hospitals have to treat them, so they need to contribute to cost. Although the hospitals are all private in the US, right ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Let's discuss this again in a decade :P I don't believe this part for a second.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that seems a little insane to me. So the government is going to try to control existing insurers to make them charge a more reasonable price ?
There was originally going to be a "public option," which would be a government-run insurance company, but this didn't make it through Congress. I think these "exchanges" are basically going to give people a side-by-side comparison, so it will be easier for people to see which insurance companies are overpriced... Could encourage competition.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not when they are a cause of cancer.
True, makes sense.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, that's how people become insured, b/c they pay a fine anyhow ? That actually does make some sense, in the sense that hospitals have to treat them, so they need to contribute to cost. Although the hospitals are all private in the US, right ?
Right, the hospitals are private, but they are obligated to treat everyone. I remember reading a blog post somewhere that explained why this is necessary... It went something like this: Goal: Force insurers to accept everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions. Problem: People will just drop their insurance plan, then sign up as soon as they get sick. So only sick people will be insured, and everyone will pay higher premiums. Solution: Force the healthy people to stay insured.
Christian Graus wrote:
Let's discuss this again in a decade :P I don't believe this part for a second.
Well they're also closing some medicaid/medicare loopholes... Combine that with the ~4% tax on investment income for the wealthy, and the 40% tax for the top-tier insurance plans (Nicknamed the "Cadillac" plans), and all of the penalties collected for people who stay uninsured... It might work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This bill may do many things. But reducing the deficit will never be one of them.
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that seems a little insane to me. So the government is going to try to control existing insurers to make them charge a more reasonable price ?
There was originally going to be a "public option," which would be a government-run insurance company, but this didn't make it through Congress. I think these "exchanges" are basically going to give people a side-by-side comparison, so it will be easier for people to see which insurance companies are overpriced... Could encourage competition.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not when they are a cause of cancer.
True, makes sense.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, that's how people become insured, b/c they pay a fine anyhow ? That actually does make some sense, in the sense that hospitals have to treat them, so they need to contribute to cost. Although the hospitals are all private in the US, right ?
Right, the hospitals are private, but they are obligated to treat everyone. I remember reading a blog post somewhere that explained why this is necessary... It went something like this: Goal: Force insurers to accept everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions. Problem: People will just drop their insurance plan, then sign up as soon as they get sick. So only sick people will be insured, and everyone will pay higher premiums. Solution: Force the healthy people to stay insured.
Christian Graus wrote:
Let's discuss this again in a decade :P I don't believe this part for a second.
Well they're also closing some medicaid/medicare loopholes... Combine that with the ~4% tax on investment income for the wealthy, and the 40% tax for the top-tier insurance plans (Nicknamed the "Cadillac" plans), and all of the penalties collected for people who stay uninsured... It might work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Could encourage competition.
perhaps, perhaps not.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well they're also closing some medicaid/medicare loopholes... Combine that with the ~4% tax on investment income for the wealthy, and the 40% tax for the top-tier insurance plans (Nicknamed the "Cadillac" plans), and all of the penalties collected for people who stay uninsured... It might work.
Well, if the government is not running anything, it could work. Here, they make a guess as to the cost of building a new hospital, and it ends up costing 10x that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Republicans will get in, remove the costs but not the care, and the deficit will skyrocket. That's my guess.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This bill may do many things. But reducing the deficit will never be one of them.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Could encourage competition.
perhaps, perhaps not.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well they're also closing some medicaid/medicare loopholes... Combine that with the ~4% tax on investment income for the wealthy, and the 40% tax for the top-tier insurance plans (Nicknamed the "Cadillac" plans), and all of the penalties collected for people who stay uninsured... It might work.
Well, if the government is not running anything, it could work. Here, they make a guess as to the cost of building a new hospital, and it ends up costing 10x that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
perhaps, perhaps not.
They're relying on the free market to reduce costs... Theoretically, it should work. Realistically, who knows? Either way, you'd think CSS would LOVE this part of the plan.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if the government is not running anything, it could work. Here, they make a guess as to the cost of building a new hospital, and it ends up costing 10x that.
Yeah, same here for more government projects. And to be fair, the government already does run Medicare and Medicaid (The existing systems, targeted at poverty-level families), and the state governments will run the exchanges... So it's not entirely private-sector.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
They do the same for Social Security and look at what a well funded money saver that is. Cut benefits, add taxes, still underfunded. Medicare, Medicade, the Post Office.. If it's government run, expect it to hemorrhage money. It's the American way.
thrakazog wrote:
They do the same for Social Security and look at what a well funded money saver that is. Cut benefits, add taxes, still underfunded.
Social security was flawed from the start, because it operated under the assumption that people wouldn't live more than X years after the retirement age. Advances in medicine killed it.
thrakazog wrote:
Medicare, Medicade, the Post Office.. If it's government run, expect it to hemorrhage money.
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Republicans will get in, remove the costs but not the care, and the deficit will skyrocket. That's my guess.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'm trying not to be that pessimistic... It's difficult, but I'm trying :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
They do the same for Social Security and look at what a well funded money saver that is. Cut benefits, add taxes, still underfunded.
Social security was flawed from the start, because it operated under the assumption that people wouldn't live more than X years after the retirement age. Advances in medicine killed it.
thrakazog wrote:
Medicare, Medicade, the Post Office.. If it's government run, expect it to hemorrhage money.
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
They do the same for Social Security and look at what a well funded money saver that is. Cut benefits, add taxes, still underfunded.
Social security was flawed from the start, because it operated under the assumption that people wouldn't live more than X years after the retirement age. Advances in medicine killed it.
thrakazog wrote:
Medicare, Medicade, the Post Office.. If it's government run, expect it to hemorrhage money.
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Which has mostly taken a hit from Email if I remember correctly. Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid, sure... But the USPS is actually a company that operates under some amount of government control, but takes ZERO money from the government. It's entirely self-sustaining through postage stamps and shipping fees.
Which has mostly taken a hit from Email if I remember correctly. Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Distind wrote:
Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Distind wrote:
Funny thing about government programs, they are never future proof.
Is anything? Time changes everything... That which doesn't adapt, fails.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Cutting medicare costs "next year" has been part of how the last few healthcare boondoggles have had their costs grossly understated. Congress never actually follows through because AARP is the one organization that might actually be able to achieve a full scale incumbent purge if they wanted to.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
So if the dems claim it, you believe it? If the reps claim it, it is mindless rhetoric? I'm supposed to believe this is a neutral evaluation?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, but the point is that it's not taxpayer-funded
You should have read the article: FTA: Yet the Postal Service is not directly funded by the federal government: although the government puts caps on the postage that it can charge, the USPS is expected to pay for itself. While it is allowed to borrow up to $15 billion from the U.S. Treasury to help it through difficult times, it is currently running a tab of $10 billion and may borrow another $3 billion this year. But this ad hoc funding system, disturbingly similar to the old method used to fund Amtrak, is a stopgap, and doesn't allow the Postal Service to engage in long-term planning. See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/cTBEHY Just like the bank bail out is not funded by the taxpayer, when the banks pay it back?
Opacity, the new Transparency.